Who should rule and the task of welcoming people to FI

Continuing my thinking on the choice to quit welcoming people to FI... (last post about it)...

Anonymous said that he quit welcoming people to FI because he thinks he doesn't share the same ideas as Elliot about how to do it.

This seems like a "who should rule" mistake. See the FI essay Who Should Rule. 

It's like Anonymous thinks that the question "who should rule on the question of how to welcome people to FI" is important and his answer to the question is "Elliot".

But the question is bad and should be replaced with this question: how should the question of how to welcome people be addressed? Note that the answer to this question would not be a person and instead the answer would be a description of a process.

So like maybe Elliot's ideas on how to welcome people to FI are not great and could be improved by other people's current ideas about how to welcome people to FI. Elliot actually said something like this. He said: 

I'm not very good at welcoming most people and getting them into the community. There are reasons and no one has been able to suggest any viable improvements. No one else is doing it better for FI despite my many requests. There are other people who are more conventional than me and could maybe get along with new people better and try to introduce them, but they won't do it much.

Note: The process of addressing the question of how to welcome people would include things like addressing external criticism (including Elliot's criticism). And the process would be a forever kind of thing. That means you do it (welcoming new people to FI) to the best you currently know how while continually improving your knowledge on how to do it (guided partly by external criticism including Elliot's criticism).